Restorations supported by dental implants with adjacent and/or opposing teeth have been performed by thousands of clinicians. An exemplary restoration process is shown in FIGS. 1a-d. Referring to FIGS. 1a, an alveolus 10 is formed in a patient's jawbone 15 to accommodate a dental implant fixture 20. Once the dental implant fixture 20 is securely in the alveolus 10 (shown in FIG. 1b), an abutment member 25 is coupled with the dental implant fixture 20 (shown FIGS. 1c-d). The restoration process is completed after tooth analogue 30 is coupled with the abutment member 25.
In view of the recent research, it has been determined that some people with single-tooth and/or multiple-tooth implant restorations exhibit esthetic, functional, restorative and/or periodontal ramifications of subtle continued craniofacial growth that occurs after the implant restorations are performed.
Craniofacial growth may influence the relationship of implant restorations to the remaining teeth and jaw structure by, for example, causing changes in occlusion, causing migration of teeth with subsequent effect of opening contact, and/or causing changes to anterior esthetic.
Changes in occlusion can be due to continued growth in the arch containing the implants, as well as the opposing arch. In both situations, the position of the implants and associated restoration are static whereas the teeth are subject to movement in both facial and occlusal directions. These potential changes are not gender-specific. For situations such as posterior free-end implant restorations supporting significant occlusal loads, these movements can negate the effectiveness of the implant restoration over time, placing unfavorable stresses on the remaining dentition.
When natural teeth are present in the same arch with dental implants, an unforeseen long-term complication observed by many has been the opening of contacts between the implant restoration and typically the natural tooth anterior to the implant restoration. With loss of the natural tooth contact mesial to the implant restoration significantly affected by age, condition of the opposing dentition, vitality of the adjacent tooth, and splinting of the anterior natural teeth. Loss of the contact is not gender-specific but appears to be more common in the lower jaw, and the rate increased over time.
Besides functional changes and consequences in occlusion and opening of contacts, it has been observed that subtle growth over time also can change esthetic results once thought to be stable. Discrepancies have become manifest in three visible areas relative to adjacent teeth: the incisal edge length, the gingival margin height, and the facial contour alignment. Extrusion and lingual tipping of anterior maxilla and teeth can simultaneously cause all three discrepancies. Thinning of labial soft tissue over the implant or abutment can be a further consequence accompanying this subtle growth process.
A discrepancy in facial alignment making the anterior implant restoration relatively more labial may or may not be able to be suitably modified or revised, depending not only on the severity of the occurrence but also on such factors as implant axial alignment, available soft-tissue depth, and labial/palatal positioning of the implant in the ridge. A progressive discrepancy between the implant restoration's cervical gingival margin and that of the adjacent natural teeth may be an esthetic complication with no easy resolution.
In view of the above, a need exists for an improved dental implant.
In the following description, like reference numbers are used to identify like elements. Furthermore, the drawings are intended to illustrate major features of exemplary embodiments in a diagrammatic manner. The drawings are not intended to depict every feature of every implementation nor relative dimensions of the depicted elements, and are not drawn to scale.